The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2005 07 11 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Peterson arrived during visitor presentations. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson and Paul Oehme PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Jim & Cheri Broughton 6927 Highover Court North Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to everybody here this evening and those watching at home. I’m glad that you joined us. At this time I’d like to ask if there’s any modifications to the agenda. If not, then we’ll proceed with the agenda that was distributed with the packet immediately prior to the meeting. Without objection. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 27, 2005 -City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated June 27, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated June 21, 2005 nd b. Approve Amendment to Highcrest Meadows 2 Addition Development Control; Changing the Owner Name. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Do you have a quorum this evening? Mayor Furlong: Yes we do. We have 3 members here. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. I know you read the article I wrote in the newspaper and I just want to say that I think that the item on Harrison Lake going before you is one of the poorest examples of the process that we have in place. In 5 years I’ve been watching things happening here and I’m just amazed by the fact that the preliminary plat was approved with so many missing items. I won’t elaborate on the specifics. There’s a lot of questions that remain open. I’m hoping that this evening you’ll give Mr. Broughton an opportunity to talk about the discrepancies he’s found and that you’ll consider seriously the fact that this process hasn’t gone according to the code. The preliminary plat and the final plat are real important and the ordinary high water line on a shoreland is critical to determining where the plats of these subdivision should be organized. I guess I’m emotionally drained by this frankly. It’s just very, very discouraging to see the city operate in this fashion. There was a rush on this project and I hope, and I know it was because you knew the individual and you have confidence in his abilities and his projects, but it’s a poor example when you have another company who has not worked within the city sitting in those meetings and listening to this. Everyone should be treated with the same decorum. I would like to see a check list developed so that every proposal coming before you, does it meet the requirements. That is suggested in the planning manual for cities and I think that would be a good policy to begin to employ. So there’s no question of impropriety. I thank you for listening. I know you all want to do the right thing. I know you work hard and you always hear the negatives. You do a good job in many other respects but I just wish that we’d start where, we seem to move ahead and then we move back in the process. Without consistency how can the people have faith in your decisions. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak during visitor presentations. Please come forward. State your name and address. Okay. Everyone is welcome each council meeting for visitor presentations. Move now to item 1(c). Unfinished business which was pulled from the consent agenda at the request of resident, Mr. Broughton. Good evening. If you’d like to come forward now. LAKE HARRISON, 6950 GALPIN BOULEVARD: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Jim Broughton: I’m Jim Broughton, 6927 Highover Court North but I’d like to request that you remove the Lake Harrison project from the consent agenda so we have a chance to make comment later. Mayor Furlong: No, we’re there now so we’re ready for your comments. Jim Broughton: Oh, we’re there now. 2 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. Jim Broughton: I thought you were going to do that during unfinished business. Alright. Do we have the overhead working tonight? Mayor Furlong: I believe so. Jim Broughton: Alright. I think I want to start off with this has been a long term deal for us and as you heard one other comment here. I think Lots 11 and 12 on Block 1 and I hope you’ve all read my e-mail. Have you all had a chance to look over the issues. I think going forward we’re going to require a number of variance for those lots. I tried to point that out I think the house pad that was proposed on that lot encroached the bluff. Didn’t meet the setbacks from the street and the lot line. And there are some other structure issues with that lot that I think it’s trying to force a house in there. The width of the house is going to have to be quite narrow. I think if it’s going to face the front line, the front lot line, to the north. Maybe zoom in here a little bit. The pink areas I’ve drawn here are, this is the required setback from the lot line. It’s 30 feet, and this is the Westwood drawing. This is the bluff, and I know this is the side of the bluff here. Top of the bluff here. And the house pad was actually set in the bluff, in the bluff setback which is not allowed by code. The house pad does not meet the structure setback from the lot line or the street, which is 30 feet. The Pemtom plan showed grading in the bluff impact zone, which is clearly not allowed. In fact I think in the staff report, item number 17, it says that no grading in the bluff will be allowed. I think it’s a blatant, a blatant approach here for the developer to show grading in the bluff impact zone when it’s not allowed, and it’s clear that we shouldn’t be doing that. The other issues here, and I can point that out. This one right here on Lot 12, there’s a grading line in the bluff impact zone. I believe there’s some issues in the power line easement here. There’s a grading line probably 5 feet from that power pole. I believe that Xcel Energy needs to approve any structures in the power line easement. I guess I’d like to ask the staff if they have that approval from Xcel Energy. That’s one question. Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you keep going and then we’ll address the questions. Jim Broughton: Sure, that’s fine. Mayor Furlong: Kind of keeping a list myself so. Jim Broughton: Yeah, okay. And I think the structures, the retaining wall here in the back of the lot is in the bluff setback and it’s a structure that needs to be 30 feet from the bluff. It’s not. Again there’s grading in the bluff. I think there’s some fire code issues. The private street was th reviewed. Bob had said to me that he had a Fire Marshal report from March 25. I’m not sure if the Fire Marshal has reviewed this current plan which was done way after that point in time. There’s some fire codes that you’re, you’ll see tonight in the Jerry Story packet that probably have not been addressed and not applied here. Including Lot 12 which is the house pad isn’t drawn on here but it will be more than 150 feet from the end of the private street. I think the Fire Marshal needs to approve that in a written document. I haven’t seen that so it’s another question for staff wondering if they have that written document. And to back up a little bit. You know before this all started the staff, I can read what the staff said. The staff had big concerns about 3 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 this and I think some of the staff still have concerns about these two lots with the bluff encroachment. The first thing that staff wrote about this was that they recommend not doing any construction or building houses on these lots. It is in the best interest of the public good that the bluff be preserved as required by ordinance to protect environmental and water quality of the site. And I think some of them still feel that way. I think we’re forcing a house on this lot. I think the development is a nice, I mean I think it’s okay. I mean I think other parts of this are good. I’m not opposed to it happening. I’m just opposed to requiring so many variances going forward without addressing those things now. If we go forward, cut the trees down, do all that and then they come back to the council and ask for variances, if you don’t grant them you’ve already ruined the environment and taken the trees down, so I think now is the time prior to approval of the final plat to determine those issues and I think you owe it to you know, owe is the wrong word. You have the obligation I think to review these and carefully review them so we don’t make a mistake and have a problem with that area of the bluff. I want to thank you for your calls back, your responses to my e-mail and Brian, thank you for the meeting we had last Saturday morning. I appreciate you doing that. Those are the major issues. Couple other minor things. The staff report says that no trees will be, that the trees on Lots 11 and 12 in the front yard will be preserved. And maybe they’ve got a new plan of Pemtom, I don’t know. But this is the front yard of Lot 11 here. The line facing the north side as, I think as Roger as you were saying, one of your documents. All the trees are gone out of there. So I don’t know how we can say we’re going to preserve the trees in the front yard of Lot 11 when they’re all being cut down. One last issue that I think is really a serious problem, and I don’t know if the group, this is the drainage plan that we’ve shown here. This is the after development drainage plan. Pre- development, this whole area here drains through and there’s a gully here down into the wetland in Lake Harrison. After this is done with the grading and the way this is being proposed, that drainage is going to be over to Highover Trail. Now I’m not an expert but I think that bluff is very important if you cut the water supply off to the bluff and the drainage, I think you’re going to have an impact in that area. I’m not sure what the impact is. But I think it’s not the right thing to do. I think now, to preserve the area, that shouldn’t happen. I can quote the code on some of these things. I think that the code says that the structure setbacks are from the top, the side and the toe of the bluff on that lot. All the issues I’m sure that you’ve read in my e-mails. I guess just to wrap this up. I would like to ask you, and I think you heard another comment here tonight earlier, to look at this very carefully. I think this was not done 100 percent by the book. I think that a lot of things got skipped. I think we should think carefully about developing homes on those two lots. It’s economically based and I think the code does not allow, I mean I know everything is economically based but in this case we could disallow these 2 lots. Preserve the beautiful bluff area. Not try and squeeze homes in there that are going to encroach the bluff. If I was going to be buying that house on that lot, if it faces the north front line, the house is going to be 45 feet wide if you measure that. That’s the width of a garage. Little bit more than the garage at my house. And if it faces the north lot, you’re going to have a stair step type building, structure in there. It just, it’s not going to be easy to build a house that would be the right kind of structure for what Dan is planning over there, and I think he’s got a beautiful area. Beautiful homes that can go in there but I think these two are a problem. They’re also going to fill, they’re also proposing to fill, there’s not, it’s not proposed in here but they’re going to fill the bluff for the driveway on Lot 12. The code clearly states that you cannot put excavated material or fill in the bluff, and there’s no, if you don’t have any other alternative you can’t, it doesn’t say that. Another part of the code does say that. You can put a driveway in the bluff if there’s no other 4 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 alternative you can do that. Let’s think about the alternative of not doing that. Of not encroaching the bluff. That is an alternative that hasn’t been addressed. And again I think that’s economically based. So I would just thank you for the time and I would ask that you please consider very carefully the approval of those two lots. I don’t know why this is, I think maybe we could table this or get more data instead of rushing this through and the long term impacts are high here I believe. So thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Ms. Aanenson, I made a list. I know you were too. Maybe we can try to address some of these. Kate Aanenson: I think I’d like to first start with the staff’s due diligence on reviewing the staff report. On what our obligation is to make sure it does meet code. City Council did grant some variances last time, and specifically I talk about the Lots 11 and 12. You need to back that out a little. What we recommended last time is a public street could come in here. This is the bluff setback zone. Both houses are outside what we told you when it came for preliminary plat, the staff’s recommendation was a cul-de-sac could be placed in there. Again before we’d recommend a variance we want to show you that it could be built another way and our recommendation was in order to preserve trees, so a cul-de-sac could go here and a driveway could come along here. The ordinance does say a driveway can go through the bluff setback if there’s no other feasible alternative, and that was our recommendation to you on their preliminary plat. Both these homes are outside the bluff setback. Our recommendation on this one is that because it was a 3 ½ acre lot, we thought that was a reasonable use and that they should submit a plan that showed how they could get a plan, a house on there. Both those houses are consistent with what’s in the area. 2,600 square feet and 3 car garage. Again these won’t be the exact house until the homeowner picks a home but we wanted to show you that they are legitimate lots. Again what you’re approving is the lot. But we wanted to show you that homes can be built to meet the setback. The change that was made was on Lot 11, to push that private drive. It does meet the fire marshal’s backing requirements, which are different than the Story variance which you’ll see shortly. Completely different. But there is no grading in the bluff setback on the two lots. There is some on the portion right here for a driveway, which would probably be similar regarding the drainage area. The recommendation, the concern regarding the drainage was that we believe that re-directing the water when you have a ravine or a gully is a better idea than forcing it to one point causing continual erosion. Again the Forester and the Water Resource Coordinator recommended drainage into a wetland has significant impacts, not similarly when you have a forced point, that causes erosion. If you remember what we did on Settlers West, we actually reinverted the water so it wasn’t running over the bluff causing additional erosion. Over time it’s accelerating from the backs of these houses too, so that was a concern so we don’t think it’s going to make the matter worst. Probably equalize or make it better. But I just want to address the first issue under visitor’s presentation. There’s 3 documents that we look at when plans come in. One would be the construction plans, and this is typically what the engineering department looks through. Grading and erosion and drainage, and then the sewer and the water plans. The OHW is on the construction plans. Those aren’t on the final plat, which is typically the small, I want to just go to this one first. I did include for you a letter from the watershed district. Here is the 994. There was a recommendation that we use the lower number. The 994 is on here. They actually took the more conservative number. The most conservative number that we got from the watershed district was 993.8. They actually overshot 5 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 it. Went 994. All measurements for the back of the homes, we’re using the more conservative number and all those lots we checked do meet ordinance. That’s our obligation and part of our check list that was mentioned earlier, so that’s one of the things we do. Go through all the construction plans. These show all the grading and tree loss, to make sure they were consistent with what was approved with the plat. And the other second document would then be the sewer and water. And the other point I want to bring up, as a part of this plan there is a directional bore being planned along the adjacent property, so there will be water. While water, directional boring that’s coming up from the subdivision to the south which would be formerly Yoberry. Highcrest Meadows, their new name. So that, there’s a road, and that would be in that easement of the driveway. So again those are two sets of plans again that’s part of our punch list that we go through making sure it meets all the city ordinance. So with that you end up with the plat, and this is the recording document, and there’s different terms of conveyances that we follow but the question was raised on the plat, the private easement. Again these are what the lots look like. This doesn’t show you how the house sits on there. Those are all in the construction plans, and with your development contract, you’re approving all of those sets of documents. So this would be the easement for Lots 10, 11 and 12. There is no showing no right-of-way. That’s a different recorded document. Again it’s on the construction plans showing the width and how that all meets city ordinance, but it’s not on this document itself. It’s recorded in the legal description showing who has access to that. Again we responded to all of the 2 e-mails that were addressed to the council regarding interpretations of the city code. Currently I agreed there’s a difference in interpretation. We did recommend the variances on the private drive. There was another recommendation with variances which we showed you. We’re showing the street grade which is driven by the existing Jerome Carlson’s house and trying to preserve those trees which was, instead of going from 7%, I believe they went to 8%, and again that was to save trees. But it’s our belief that we have met all the requirements of the city code. Again we disagree with the interpretation of the structure. We believe the small retaining wall next to the street is a part of the street structure, as would be if we put a trail in and needed to bank it up with a retaining wall, we couldn’t consider that a structure to the driveway itself. So I believe I’ve answered most of the questions. It there’s any other. Mayor Furlong: There was an issue, a question was raised about the utility easement, the Xcel Energy utility easement and any work done. Kate Aanenson: Again that’s not a structure. Again we would have our trail within that same thing, so it just, the retaining wall’s just a small segment of holding up that embankment of the driveway. It’s not a free standing tall structure, and any different than would be our. Again there is a citation that says a driveway isn’t a structure and that’s the portion that’s on is that portion of the driveway. Mayor Furlong: I know there are times where we require a condition to be met which might include agreements between the developer and other private parties. I mean that happens from time to time. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. 6 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Mayor Furlong: And when that’s the case we set the condition and they have to find, we have to make sure, the developer has to make sure that that condition is met, even if that needs to obtain another agreement with another private party. Kate Aanenson: Correct. You had one with the watershed district or something like that, or adjacent property owners. Or Xcel Energy. Mayor Furlong: I’m thinking, whether it’s the utility easement here or whether it’s a right turn lane on a county road… Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, and sometimes those agreements take a while before they get executed and sometimes even after we approve the plat, those would be before we allow construction to commence. We wait for all those approvals to come in because that sometimes may be another 2 week lag period before we’d have a pre-construction meeting or something like that. 2 or 3 weeks, and they have to have all those permits in before they can proceed. Mayor Furlong: And is that the same, you say construction. Is that the same then for grading because that was another issue brought up about grading or taking out trees prior to actually a permit being issued. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. There’s certain permits you have to have in place before you can grade. Watershed approval…some of those sort of things. I don’t know if you wanted to add anything. Paul Oehme: Yes, we always look at the issues surrounding each of the permits that come in for grading or utility installations from different agencies to make sure all the other agencies permits are met. Kate Aanenson: So again I just want to reiterate on the staff report, we had a condition that that meet code. Again the setback, the front setback, this line was moved and the driveway was moved so that’s at the 30 on the front which is required by ordinance. It does have the 20 here, and then this would be the rear setback, side setback so it meets all of those setbacks. And that would be, if you look on the final plat approvals which is item 1(c)-1. Page 28. The private drive, street driveways shall be shown as on lot, plans dated 5/9/05. That plan is revised to today’s date. So that would be modified to 7/11 and that represents this. That does meet that. What it didn’t show on the plat, on the previous presentation, that this line carrying all the way through, and then they’re shifting forward so that is the correct line. Again we verified that as we’re going through the plans, and we just asked them to have a better representation. We had a black and white one, that’s why it’s dated today and color. We wanted it to clearly show tonight. Mayor Furlong: And which condition is that? Kate Aanenson: On number 49. So this section right here is modified because that plan was actually shown at the last meeting, and this is a further iteration of that. 7 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Mayor Furlong: The other question I heard was about grading within the bluff impact zone where one of the conditions says there will be none. Talking about the structures I think. Kate Aanenson: Structures, correct. Mayor Furlong: Is that an inconsistency? Kate Aanenson: Again our interpretation is a driveway isn’t a structure, nor is that retaining wall. That was our interpretation. Mayor Furlong: Okay. For clarity, could that be tied to the same plan? Kate Aanenson: Sure. As per this plan dated yeah. Mayor Furlong: So which would mean that if it meets this plan… Kate Aanenson: Actually that’s a good, your development contract references the dates and plans and specs approved for this. All the plans that are on the table here today, so that would look like this. Mayor Furlong: So it’s covered then? Kate Aanenson: Yes. But that’s fine to reiterate that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: Mayor, maybe I can just make one comment so we’re all on the same page. As you know the approval process for subdivisions is broken down into two parts. The preliminary plat and the final plat. The preliminary plat review is to determine whether the subdivision meets the requirements of your code. Your requirements of your zoning ordinance, what have you. That’s where you make the policy decision. That’s where you make the planning decisions where you apply the code. The purpose of the final plat is to condition the preliminary plat on meeting certain conditions. The purpose of the final plat is to make sure that those conditions in which you approved the preliminary plat have been met. For example if you say you have to make, move a lot line, you’re required to do this A, B, C or D and you want some changes in the plat, then when it comes back for final plat approval you make sure that those changes have been met. It’s not the function of final plat approval to review the entire thing from the get go. It’s just to determine whether the conditions of preliminary approval have been satisfied. Mayor Furlong: Okay. What was the time line of this process in terms of the applicant and the, because this went through Planning Commission and, do you have those? Is that in the report? Kate Aanenson: I don’t know if I have the application attached to this. To fast track it would be 2 months. It certainly took more than that. 4, 6, 5. I don’t have the whole file so I don’t have the first date. Typically we meet with sometimes a developer a month or two before it even gets submitted to work out some issues so. 8 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Typically we have 60 days, but that can be extended. Kate Aanenson: Yes, so it was in excess of 60 days. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry. Kate Aanenson: It was in excess of 60 days. Roger Knutson: Mayor just to be clear for preliminary plat approval you have 120 days after the application is submitted and 60 days after for final plat approval. Mayor Furlong: After preliminary? Roger Knutson: Correct. After the final plat application is filed. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from staff, or of staff from the council? Councilman Lundquist: Kate if I read the data correctly here, actually Xcel did receive a copy of the plans for review and comment, is that right? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: And no objections by them? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Lundquist: On the condition 49 that you just referenced for clarification along with that change in the date on those drawings, would it make sense. I lost the page. To change that to private street and driveway? Kate Aanenson: It’s actually on the driveway portion of it. Councilman Lundquist: So should it be called the driveway shall be shown? Kate Aanenson: It’s referencing Lot and 12 and actually it encumbers the change to make the setback so if you want, I think it’s probably best just to leave and driveway. Councilman Lundquist: Private street and driveway? Kate Aanenson: (Yes). Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff from council? Oh I’m sorry, Councilman Lundquist. 9 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Kate when we talked before, again these new, this colored page that you just put out has the bluff impact zone on it. Nann, can you put that one up on the. So that yellow line that runs along the house, or along the edge of the house is the bluff setback. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s hard to see on that camera but it’s actually. Councilman Lundquist: So if you’ve got that house pad right there in the middle and the retaining walls that are shown in that grading plan. Kate Aanenson: This retaining wall. Councilman Lundquist: Or those grading lines, or whatever that are on there. Actually are not in that bluff impact zone. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: Because that, the bluff impact zone is the blue line, correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And again the rule on that is to preserve the trees so you’re just kind of making a demarcation of where, similar to what we did on the main street that went in Harrison Lake. Councilman Lundquist: And that house, and that house pad meets our, without variance meets setback, front and side and bluff. Meets the minimum requirements for square footage. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: And everything else. Same with the one on Lot 12? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Without variances. Councilman Lundquist: Without variances. The turn around for the fire issue. Kate Aanenson: Can we just back up on that. If you recall, the applicant wanted us to give this variance. It was the staff’s recommendation that they demonstrate that it didn’t require a variance and that they. Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Actually in the preliminary I thought we denied that variance. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. They had asked for that and we said no. You have to show us a legitimate lot and that’s what this is, yes. 10 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: And when we approved the preliminary plat 2 weeks ago, or whenever that was recently, the only variance that was granted anywhere in 11 and 12 was for the driveway. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: On this Block 1. The rest of them. Kate Aanenson: For the private street, because we showed a cul-de-sac could go in there and you would still allow a driveway off the cul-de-sac so we felt it would be, in order to save the trees in there, it’d be better to put the private drive in. Because our requirements that they always demonstrate first on what you’re saving. Not to just give it first. Councilman Lundquist: Right. And that was the only variance that had any impact on Lot 1, 11 and 12. The rest of them were the setbacks. Kate Aanenson: And then the street grade, correct. Councilman Lundquist: And the street grade in the other areas. Kate Aanenson: The 8%. Councilman Lundquist: On the ordinary high water mark again, the letter that was included in here said that the 993.8 was the number. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: When this plat was put together it was a 994 that was used? So that actually makes the high water mark 2/10 of a foot higher. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: Which would push those plat lines farther from the water, is that the right way? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, right. And we did measure all those setbacks and they all meet the setback from the ordinary high water mark. Councilman Lundquist: By an extra, now that. Kate Aanenson: 2/10. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And again within that easement, the trail and all of those things, Xcel’s seen that and they don’t have an issue with any of that stuff? Because we are going to put a trail through there and the driveway and all that stuff, correct? 11 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Paul Oehme: That’s correct, and actually where the power lines are currently located, that is an outlot owned by the city currently. Kate Aanenson: The portion on the other side, yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Right. Do we have any other areas in the city that we have utility easements like that that we have trails or driveways or anything like that in? Kate Aanenson: I’m sure we do. Councilman Lundquist: That just came to mind. Todd Gerhardt: The closest one we have over by the Legion where the pedestrian bridge goes underneath a power line. Transmission line there. Next to Northcott office building. You know we cross underneath that periodically as you go west through Stone Creek. Kate Aanenson: Actually there probably is some on Stone Creek Drive as that line drops off of 5 and goes south. There probably is some through there. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Alright, that’s all I have for now. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. Sir, for what purpose? John Broughton: I would just like to…comment. May I approach the podium? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. One short comment will be appreciated. John Broughton: …I apologize. On the Xcel Energy issue. Mayor Furlong: If you could wait til you get to the microphone so people at home can hear too. John Broughton: On the Xcel Energy issue, I asked Xcel Energy, there’s a gentleman named Ed O’Trap who is the gentleman, who is the senior right-of-way agent for Xcel, because this is right behind my home. I talked to him this morning. He said he had not seen this and he had not approved it. He said he has to approve it. I don’t know why Kate’s saying that. Here’s a document from Xcel, and I’m not trying to cause trouble. I just want this process to go correctly. And this says activities requiring approval. Prior approval. Excavation or grade changes. Landscaping, driveways. And this is the gentleman who is responsible for the approval process and he has not, I asked him if he’d call the City or send you an e-mail to please address the issue, and apparently he didn’t. Kate Aanenson: Yes, he did call the city and actually he was very confused on what was going on. He talked to Allison in the engineering department. Actually he was pretty confused. Again any permit required before our approval, there’s a lot of permitting stuff that isn’t executed at this point and that’s normal. Watershed approvals. PCA approvals. That’s normal condition. 12 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Again this is the first step going through and make sure the plat meets, before construction can proceed, all permits have to be executed before they can begin construction. That’s the normal process. Typically those are done with the pre-con. Evaluate on what things are still need to be secured. But they have received a copy of the plat. Again, this person you spoke to really didn’t know much about it. I’m not sure what area he was in, but he was rather confused about the whole question. John Broughton: Well he told me he had never received anything from the city so. Kate Aanenson: I’m not sure he’s the right person to get the permit either. John Broughton: He told me he was. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor. Mayor, staff will be contacting Xcel Energy and making sure we follow all their rules as a part of this. No grading permit will be issued until Xcel is accepted on the grading plan. And we’ll work with them. To Kate’s point, I believe it’s 35 different agencies that we send this plat out to and Xcel Energy is one of those agencies that receives a copy of the plat and we ask for their comments. That’s why you have this 120 days. We need to give them proper time to get their comments back to us so we can submit it to the Planning Commission and City Council. And with this application we did not receive any comments from Xcel on this and they would have gotten a copy of the grading plan so, but as a part of this we will call them personally. Follow up with this and see what concerns they have. Usually there’s a pre- construction meeting where all the utilities attend. Phone company. Minnegasco. Cable TV. They all attend this meeting to talk about locates and how paths of dirt will be removed and where the utilities are located so, and that meeting typically doesn’t occur until after the final plat. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. John Broughton: I don’t believe you addressed the fire code either, so. Thank you for clarifying that Todd. I think that’s good. I feel strongly because that’s right behind my house, and you show grading within 5 feet of those power poles. I think that’s not very safe, and you’d have that approved prior to final approval plat. Kate Aanenson: It’s not prior to final approval plat. It’s prior to construction commencing. Todd Gerhardt: Prior to construction. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And appreciate the diligence of everybody involved in this to make sure that we follow our ordinance and get through the details. Councilman Lundquist: For clarification Mr. Mayor, on the, when the applicant would go through to final their permits for the driveway or their approval or whatever it is for that 13 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 driveway through that utility easement, if Xcel has an issue with that and they say no, then essentially . Todd Gerhardt: We have a problem. Councilman Lundquist: They don’t have a. Councilman Peterson: We don’t have a problem. The developer has a problem. Councilman Lundquist: But the burden is on the developer to make that happen. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I heard too Mr. Gerhardt you talked about pre-construction but that would also include grading for the driveway on Lots 11 and 12? Todd Gerhardt: Well to do the grading on Lots 11 and 12, you would have to have a pre- construction. That’s typically what happens before the, before any grading occurs. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Grading is the first step in the building process. You have to establish the grades. Then the utilities go in. Mayor Furlong: Got it. Okay, thank you. Any discussion from council? On this. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think it really comes down to the interpretation, you know and council is tasked with many things but interpreting code and intention and setting code is certainly one of those. We’ve heard tonight from citizens and residents, staff and council, there’s a disagreement. A clear disagreement in interpreting the code but in looking at it and reading all the information that is here, I certainly look at it and go, it’s reasonable and prudent for us to move ahead with those lots if all those conditions are met. I don’t see a compelling reason to deny it based upon what’s been brought up this evening and from all of the conversations that have happened over the last few days. Our job is to interpret and my reaction is, it’s reasonable and are we bending a little bit? Yeah. Are we bending a lot? Absolutely not. I think that we’re making a reasonable development. I don’t think it’s an economic thing. We’re letting the owner put on a lot that’s reasonable and I don’t think we’re pushing the limits very much from what I’m sensing, so. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts, comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, I agree with Councilman Peterson. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. 14 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: I agree with Councilman Peterson as well and we’ve put a lot of effort focused tonight on Lots 11 and 12, but as we look at the development as a whole as well, the number of house pads on this entire site is actually quite minimal compared to what the options totally could be. There’s a vast amount of open space, wetlands and other things on this that have been dedicated or outlotted as part of that and be some hopefully some nice parkland in the one corner so I think as well I believe that it’s reasonable to allow the developer to put house pads given that there’s a, that this development has a limited number where they can get them without variances. And based on our actions on the preliminary plat we showed that we weren’t willing to give up some of that stuff on the bluff by denying that variance, and that obviously there’s some impact to an existing neighborhood but we’ve seen in this area kind of the hot bed lately the last few months with Pinehurst and whatever the Yoberry/Highcrest, is that one done? It’s Highcrest. And how this Lake Harrison one, that any time we have an existing development that it gets encroached by another one in open space that we’ve had a little friction. So looking at this I would also commend and say thank you especially to Mr. and Mrs. Broughton and to Mrs. Paulsen for their comments and keeping this, keeping us and the staff on their toes. I spent a great deal of time on this one. I took up a lot of staff time on this one going through it several times as well, and I feel confident that we’ve answered those questions and as Mr. Peterson said as well, there’s some areas that are open to interpretation and obviously again there is a disagreement but I think our interpretations are reasonable and accurate and that the development as a whole for this site is a great development and I’m comfortable with where we’re at and with all of the actions on the final plat. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I would concur with Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist. I won’t reiterate their comments. I think they’re well said. The other thing that I would point out is sometimes we’re, with regard to variances and the number of variances on a particular plat, it’s the implication is that we’re relaxing the code and I think in this case what we’re trying to do is look at does the code give us the best development or with some variances can we improve the development. I think in this case both in terms of the private street versus a public cul-de-sac that would serve Lots 11 and 12, with that variance it’s improved. We’re saving trees. We’re fitting the infrastructure better to the natural topography. The same would be true with the other variances that were discussed and approved at our preliminary plat, whether they were the front yard setback, or the street grade. Again it was to try to improve the development to better fit with the topography rather than to be lenient. And as was said, the variances that were asked, that were more the blank check variance, the Planning Commission and the council said no to and staff concurred with that, and so I think there’s been a lot of time and effort in here and as I said before, I do appreciate the scrutiny with which both our residents and staff and the council has spent, the Planning Commission as well on this project and we need to do that on all projects. Reasonable people can differ in terms of what might be best but I think we have a reasonable development here. One that will be an asset to the city in large part because of what’s not being developed versus what is, so with that I would ask if there are any other comments. And if not, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I’d move that City Council approve final plat for Lake Harrison creating 39 lots with 6 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets with a 15 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 variance for a private street and street grades subject to the conditions set forth in the council packet. With the one change on 49. Councilman Lundquist: Two changes on 49. Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Inserting the word and between street and driveway and then changing the date to 11. Or July 11, ’05. Councilman Peterson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the Final Plat for Lake Harrison Addition creating 39 lots, 6 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated June 20, 2005) with a variance for a private street and street grade, subject to the following conditions: 1.If Lot 12, Block 3 is further subdivided to create an additional lot, the swimming pool must be removed, prior to the replatting. 2.E. Jerome and Linda Carlson will donate Outlots A, C and D to the City of Chanhassen. The developer shall pay full park fees for 37 new residential lots. The total park and trail fees due payable at the time of final plat recording are $148,000.00. 3.Building Official Conditions: a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c.The developer must name and install a street sign for the private street. d.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. e.Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. f.Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site but be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code and the existing home must be connected to city sewer service when available. g.The swimming pool adjacent to the existing residence must be protected by a fence in accordance with City Code. 16 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 4.The developer must coordinate the address change of the existing home with the construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times. 5.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring. Wetland replacement monitoring plans shall be submitted annually beginning one growing season after the wetland is created until the wetland replacement is accepted in writing by the City. The vegetation management plan shall be enhanced to provide a detailed outline for the treatment of reed canary grass and purple loosestrife. The vegetation management plan and wetland mitigation plan sheets shall specify that newly created wetland mitigation areas shall be seeded in a swath that extends at least 1' above and 1' below the normal water level of the mitigation areas. 6.A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A, B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 7.Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building setback requirements. 8.All plans shall illustrate Lake Harrison’s OHW and a 150-foot structure setback from the OHW. 9.The bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff). 10.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 11.MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed shall be applied to exposed creek slopes near/around road crossing within 24 hours of temporary/final grade. Riprap, appropriately sized, shall be installed at flared end outlets for energy dissipation with underlying gravel base or geotextile fabric. All emergency over flow structures shall be stabilized with riprap and geotextile or permanent turf re-enforcement blankets. Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for Wetland A area. Silt fence, mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1 slopes shall be covered with 17 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 category 3 erosion blanket. An outlet meeting NPDES water quality discharge requirements is needed on Pond 1. 12.Following storm water inlet installation, Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls shall be installed and regularly maintained. A detail for the inlet sediment controls shall be provided. 13.Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen specification Type 1 silt fence or other approved perimeter sediment control shall be installed for all positive slopes curbside. 14.Geotextile fabric shall be installed under the rock to promote effectiveness and lifespan of the rock construction entrance. 15.Chanhassen Type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re-enforcement shall be provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet installation. 16.The “Inlet Sediment Filter” detail shall be altered to show a rock berm (1½ -inch rock, 2 feet wide and 1 foot high along the outside of the silt fence. Only metal T-posts shall be used, not wood stakes. 17.Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 18.All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 19.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 20.All development phases shall be represented in the SWPPP (clear and grubbing, mass grading, large utilities, small utilities, home building, along with any special requirement such as wetland or creek crossing areas). 21.Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the 18 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented from entering the waters of the State. 22.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $120,585.00. 23.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Carver County, Met Council) and comply with their conditions of approval. 24.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. In no areas shall the fencing be placed within the bluff impact zone. 25.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 3/18/05, will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 26.A total of 322 trees are to be planted. The number of overstory, deciduous trees, as shown on landscape plans dated 6/20/05, required in the front yard of each lot are as follows: Lot, Block Number of trees required Lot 1, blk 1 5 Lot 2, blk 1 2 Lot 3, blk 1 1 Lot 4, blk 1 1 Lot 5, blk 1 1 Lot 6, blk 1 2 Lot 7, blk 1 2 Lot 8, blk 1 2 Lot 9, blk 1 1 Lot 10, blk 1 2 Lot 11, blk1 None – existing front yard trees to be preserved Lot 12, blk 1 None – existing front yard trees to be preserved Lot 1, blk 2 4 Lot 2, blk 2 3 Lot 3, blk 2 2 Lot 4, blk 2 2 Lot 5, blk 2 3 Lot 6, blk 2 1 Lot 7, blk 2 3 Lot 8, blk 2 2 19 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Lot, Block Number of trees required Lot 9, blk 2 2 Lot 10, blk 2 7 Lot 1, blk 3 5 Lot 2, blk 3 3 Lot 3, blk 3 2 Lot 4, blk 3 2 Lot 5, blk 3 1 Lot 6, blk 3 1 Lot 7, blk 3 1 Lot 8, blk 3 2 Lot 9, blk 3 2 Lot 10, blk 3 2 Lot 11, blk 3 3 Lot 12, blk 3 6 Lot 13, blk 3 3 Lot 14, blk 3 2 Lot 15, blk 3 2 Lot 16, blk 3 None – existing front yard trees to be preserved 27.The developer shall be responsible for planting any trees in side or rear yards as shown on the landscape plan dated 3/18/05. 28.Any private street is required to have 20-foot wide paved streets from back-of-curb to back-of- curb, be built to a 7-ton design, have a maximum slope of 10%, and contained within a 30-foot wide private easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private street was built to a 7-ton design. 29.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 30.All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL. Pond number 3 must be adequately sized to accommodate the drainage from Lot 1, Block 4, and the proposed park area. 31.Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota with an approved fence. Also, it will require a building permit from the Building Department. 32.Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data and full size mapwill need to be submitted for staff review. Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public 20 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. 33.Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with the City’s Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City’s Type II erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing wetlands. Type I silt fence shall be used in all other areas. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 34.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. 35.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 36.The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. Remove the proposed curb along the north side of the right turn land on Galpin Boulevard. 37.Maximum 3:1 side slopes are allowed without the use of a retaining wall, revise the plan . accordingly 38.Minimum 40-foot wide public drainage and utility easements will be required between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, and along the west side of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1. 39.On the grading plan: a.Show 12 foot spacing between any two parallel retaining walls over 4-foot in height. b.Add a note to remove all existing approaches. c.Show the EOF for the easterly cul-de-sac and the garage elevations of allLots adjacent to it need to be at least 1.5 feet higher than the emergency overflow for the street. 40.On the utility plan: 21 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 a.Relocate the proposed 12 inch pvc raw water main away from the retaining wall by at least 10 feet along the private street. b.Show all existing utilities, pipe type and manhole rim/inverts within Lake Lucy Road, Galpin Boulevard, Highover Trail and Manchester Drive. c.Show the existing sanitary sewer in the center of the existing easement. d.Add note: any connection to existing structure must be core drilled. e.Water service must be1-inch copper type K. f.The watermain must be looped through to Manchester Drive versus Galpin Boulevard. 41.Staff is recommending that a raw water transmission main be extended through the site for future connection to the City’s second water treatment plant. The construction cost for the raw watermain will be paid by the City from the water portion of the Utility Fund. The developer will be required to provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main and to install the pipe as a part of the utility construction. 42.Since the applicant is now proposing more units (38) than what the property has been assessed for, the additional 37 units (38-1=37) will be charged a sanitary sewer and watermain lateral connection charge. These charges are due at the time of final plat recording. 43.As with past developments that access off of Galpin Boulevard, a right-turn lane into the site will be required to be constructed. The turn lane must meet Carver County design requirements. 44.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 45.Two additional fire hydrants are required. 46.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 47.Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 48.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 49.The private street and driveway shall be as shown on the Lot 11 & 12 detail plan dated 7/11/05. 50.On the storm sewer and street plans show all the roads turning radius. 22 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 51.Show the sanitary sewer minimum 20-foot easement on Lot 1, Block 2. 52.Show minimum 20-foot easement for the water-main of Lake Harrison Road looping to the north with the existing Manchester Drive water-main. 53.Show the right existing sanitary easement on Lot 3, Block 3, and revise the standard easement accordingly. 54.All outlot boundaries shall be revised to incorporate wetland buffers where applicable. 55.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit in the amount of $136,400 to guarantee the design goal for the wetland replacement site, as approved in the replacement plan, is fully achieved. The letter of credit shall be written to remain in effect for 5 years.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Is there another motion that we need there? The development contract? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Roger Knutson: Didn’t you approve that? Mayor Furlong: No. We pulled both of them off the consent agenda. Kate Aanenson: I had turned it off for a second. I didn’t know, the development contract was also on. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Without objection is there a motion to approve item 1(c)(2) as presented in the consent agenda? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the construction plans and specifications for Lake Harrison dated June 20, 2005, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and the development contract dated July 11, 2005, conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,987,300.00 and pay an administration fee of $318,846.00. 23 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 2. The applicant’s engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to meet city standards. 3. Direct the city attorney to draft a purchase agreement for Lot 1, Block 4 ($740,000) and Outlot B ($560,000) for the development of a future water treatment plant and park land. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, in the future you can have one motion. Just include both of those if you’d like so. Councilman Peterson: You just have to remember to do that. Mayor Furlong: That’s right. I don’t think we officially did it so better to be clean. Todd Gerhardt: Not a problem. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD DRIVEWAY TO SERVE AS A PRIVATE STREET TO DRTBR MOTR THAN ONE LOT; LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BRETTON WAY, AND EAST OF TETON LANE, JERRY STORY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-19. Public Present: Name Address th Jerry & Karon Story 12137-88 Place North Naomi Carlson 5955 Cathcart Drive, Excelsior Robert Rabe 6307 Teton Lane Rob LaFleur 3700 Campbell Mithun Tower, Minneapolis Cynthia Gallo 16799 Terrey Pine Drive, Eden Prairie Kate Aanenson: This is an application for a variance with a subdivision, which has different criteria, subdivision with variance with a subdivision automatically gets forwarded to the City Council. That’s why it’s here before you tonight. The property is located off of Powers Boulevard. Location is, here’s Powers Boulevard. The city owns this piece of property. There is a private easement that accesses that piece of property currently. I want to give a little bit of the history of this property. The Story’s have had the property since 1991. They don’t currently live on the property but have owned it since that time. This item, they’ve tried to subdivide this property over a number of years, and most recently we, as a staff had recommended that they go to the Planning Commission to talk about different ways to subdivide that property under open discussion, again to get some direction on how that should occur. It did go to the Planning Commission under open discussion and didn’t feel like that was the right answer that they 24 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 wanted to hear. I think the Planning Commission felt like maybe it was premature, again for the reason being that there is the 14 foot easement that does provide access for the property and they actually wanted 4 lots. It’s kind of hard to see on the light shaded but actually 4 lots with a cul- de-sac so they can only provide additional right-of-way once they got past that common portion. So in meeting with myself and the city manager, again to try to get some clarity or administrative relief to go through the process, to have their story heard, they actually wanted to do the variance and we recommended that without a subdivision. Again not to incur a lot of expense of doing all the engineering to find out whether or not there was some support because again the Planning Commission kind of discouraged it. So I did send a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Story and recommended, and the fact that they did need a variance, and give us rationale for that because it’s a 14 foot. Again a private street as you’ve just seen in the last one does require a 30. Again we asked to demonstrate is there another way to do it? On the last example there was another way to do it. It was definitely environmentally greater impact. In this circumstance again, if you can zoom back, there’s no way to get this common portion to the…so you’d actually have more houses on a 14 substandard street. So in looking at this, the previous analysis before we went to the Planning Commission and work session we had laid out kind of the greater neighborhood, this parcel and looked at a possibility of a private street. Unfortunately not everybody’s ready to develop at the same time and the property owner, this property owner didn’t want to provide the additional easement. Again there are already properties in the area that would be ripe for subdivision. Again as part of our job is to make sure that we’re kind of balance all that. So in looking at that, the staff position, going back before they originally went just before the open discussion was that may be premature. So they are, decided to pursue just going for the variance on the 14 foot private easement. And that’s kind of the background of how we got to this point today. So they did proceed looking for a subdivision request, on the variance, on the existing easement that they do have to the property, and that’s when they also set we have before you today. So we went through the private street standard criteria and made an analysis of that and the fact that there is an existing home on the property that has reasonable use. You’ve got the one home. Was that you can’t even get a standard for a private street would be a 30 foot right- of-way, 20 foot pavement width, so you can’t even get that so you aren’t even meeting the variance for the private street. You’re not even meeting that. So with that we went through the criteria and kind of recommended that the existing home has a driveway access and it’s adequate for 5 homes but, for 1 home but not 5. And there are other ways to get to the property in the future, so staff to the Planning Commission recommended too that we deny the variance for the 30 foot wide, the 6 foot variance from the 20 foot pavement. Then we also had recommended, they do want to do what they would have to do to meet that criteria, and that’s where the Fire Marshal’s comments came in if they couldn’t, because this is only 14 feet wide for that many homes which is different than one home at the end of that driveway. The other portion of that common street did meet the 20 foot, just that long ago. This is radically different than that and that’s, I just want to make that connection. So they did put conditions, if the Planning Commission were to approve it, we did put conditions in for the variance. But ultimately the st Planning Commission did recommend denial at their public hearing on June 21 and again that item is here before you tonight because it’s a subdivision request. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. No? 25 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: When, Todd this might be a question for you too. When, if I remember right when I read through this Mr. and Mrs. Story approached the city about buying land accessing directly off of Powers. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: Into that piece which is that little pie shaped piece that the city owns. And what was our rationale for not wanting to put a street there? Todd Gerhardt: You always want to try to limit the access points on a major collector road like Powers and I think the County made some comments, but I think if you own property that abuts the Powers, you can put an access point in there and the County said if you can gain one from a property owner, you know they would grant it. Thus being the City owning that property we should not add any more access points onto Powers if we can stop it. So it was my recommendation not to allow another access point out onto Powers when there’s another way in the future off of Teton Lane. Kate Aanenson: And I know the issue was brought up regarding that too. The Habitat for Humanity homes that were put. That one as Todd just mentioned did have direct access onto Powers and that’s why they were given it, and we did require a common driveway for those two lots. And I know they felt like maybe the treatment wasn’t the same but that does abut Powers Boulevard and we did force a common driveway. Councilman Lundquist: And those are those two other odd shaped lots? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, correct. And they’re shaped like that because they have a common driveway easement through the middle. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other comments or questions? For staff. If not, is the applicant here, Mr. Story. Good evening. Jerry Story: Good evening. Mayor Furlong: You have any comments for the council? Jerry Story: Yes I do. I’d like to thank the mayor and the council members and staff for this th opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Jerry Story. I live at 12137 88 Place North in Maple Grove. I’ve owned the property at 6281 Teton Lane in Chanhassen for over 14 years. I’m here to speak about the proposal for a variance to our property. I lived in this area most of my life and I attended Chaska High School. When I was a kid I used to ride my bike through the rolling hills when Chanhassen was a township. I bought the property at 6281 Teton Lane with the intent to develop and build our home. This is a beautiful and unique piece of property and the best use of the land would be to subdivide it. If we did divide it, 4 homes could be built on nice wooded lots. This would be the best use of the land for the city. The neighbors next to our 26 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 property would like to see our lot stay a single lot because they enjoy the wildlife. There are a lot of deer in this area and the development of my property would not change that. My neighbors have the right to do with their property as they see fit. And they have exercised that right. On the properties surrounding mine there are single family homes, a duplex, a foundry, extra garages and out buildings, also a garage converted into a rental home. And many other things that neighbors have had the freedom to install on their property. What I am asking for is access to my land so that I can exercise my rights. From what I understand there’s a state law that says if your property does not abut a road that you still have the right to use it for a legal purpose and gain access to do so. In the Planning Commission report they stated that my land is a premature development because of surrounding undeveloped property. The owners of these properties have stated, all 3 of them that they have no interest in developing their properties now or ever. I believe that the development of my property is not premature because each adjoining parcel could be developed within itself. This still lets them do whatever they want to with their land. When the current easement was given for access to my property in 1969 the easement was adequate. Obtaining this variance would allow me to use my property in a legal manner. And I’d like to thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Story? No? Okay, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff? If not we’ll move to discussion. Discussion by council. Thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: This one’s a more difficult one I think for me than maybe the last one. I’m sensitive to Mr. and Mrs. Story in their wanting to subdivide their property, which is perfectly expected for that. However the, a 14 foot wide road going in to serve those 4 or 5 homes isn’t going to be something that I can support. It’s just too narrow. Too small. Not built to the right standards for all kinds of reasons, that’s not going to work out. It’s unfortunate that it couldn’t be worked out privately I guess but again as Mr. Story stated, that’s perfectly within the neighbor’s rights to grant or not grant that land. I can see the access off of Powers as well being an issue, and especially as other areas of the city we try to limit those access points on some of our major roads like Highway 7 and we’ve had similar discussions on Highway 41 and other places as well in past developments so I struggle with it because I don’t know, I don’t see a great way to give Mr. Story access to get those 4 or 5 houses on there. From a legal standpoint, I think the state statute burden has been met that there is access to the property to use albeit at this point for one home or something less than 5. And I just don’t, I don’t see with this proposal a way that I can support anything other than it’s current use the way it is. Those are my comments. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I tend to agree with the Planning Commission that this property is premature at the time. He does have legal access to his property. I think it can be used in a manner that his other neighbors…to live. Access to it. I think it’s ideal in there if he would come in with a neighbor and they both would decide to subdivide but obviously they’re not willing to do that at this time and so because of those reasons I agree with the Planning Commission and their recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson. 27 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Councilman Peterson: I agree. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. As do I. Is there any further discussion or comment? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I’d move the Planning Commission deny variance. Mayor Furlong: City Council perhaps. Déjà vu all over again. Councilman Peterson: Creature of habit I guess. I spent too many times there. That the council denies, recommends denial of Variance 05-19 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot wide easement and a 6 foot variance from the 20 foot pavement width requirement and variance to allow a private street based upon the findings of facts in the staff report. Roger Knutson: And you’re adopting those findings as the council’s findings? Councilman Peterson: That’s affirmative. Roger Knutson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council denies Variance #05-19 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot wide easement requirement, a 6 foot variance from the 20 foot pavement width requirement, and a variance to allow a private street based on the findings of fact in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Audience: Mayor, can I ask a question? Mayor Furlong: Regarding what? Audience: Effect of… Mayor Furlong: Is it something that the council needs to deal with or can you just talk to the attorney? Audience: I can talk to the attorney. Mayor Furlong: If it’s an effect issue. Okay. Okay, thank you. 28 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Well Roger was saying, should I do this or should you do this? Mayor Furlong: You do 16, I’ll do 1. th Todd Gerhardt: Okay. CNN Money has selected Chanhassen as the 16 Best Place to Live in the United States. And kind of a surprise. Got a few e-mails from friends today so pretty th exciting to be in Money Magazine’s upcoming issue as the 16 best place to live in the United States. And as the mayor would say. Mayor Furlong: The number one place to live in Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. I think some of the criteria that led to this, student to teacher ratio was at 14.10. The best place average was 15.37. Our air pollution index was very low. Personal crime risk and property crime risk were way below average. I think those were some key factors that worked for our selection. And believe it or not, I think this property hurt us but 3.4 degrees in January probably didn’t help us at all. Mayor Furlong: Could have been a top 10 list you think? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. The average was 26.5 but 3.4 probably didn’t give us very many points on that, but very pleased and excited to be a part of that and I think the community and staff and council should be very proud. Councilman Lundquist: And just for everybody, in case they didn’t or don’t get the issue, what the Mayor was referring to is, as I read through it, the only other Minnesota city in the top 100 was Rochester at a distant 73 from 16 so those are the only two Minnesota cities in the top 100. Todd Gerhardt: So that was exciting news today and so. We’ll try to get something on our web page. I did give one to the Villager so I’m sure he’ll call me tomorrow and do a little story on it. Mayor Furlong: I was at the Executive Committee for the Regional Council of Mayors, which I participate in today at 9:00. 1:15 they asked if there was any new news going on. Unfortunately I got this e-mail at about 3:00 so that would have been fun. I’ll have to wait a month on that one. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, it’s fun to dig those other mayors. Mayor Furlong: When you get the chance. It wouldn’t be a dig. It would be sharing good news. Todd Gerhardt: Sharing information. Mayor Furlong: Sharing good news, that’s right. 29 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Todd Gerhardt: Just so you know they’re starting the mill and overlay on Lake Lucy Road. Silt fence went in today. They did start a while ago with more utility work. Relocating the hydrants but Paul’s been…and overlaying should start in the next couple weeks. Paul Oehme: Yeah, I think they’re starting milling on Wednesday. Todd Gerhardt: So I think our mill and overlays in southerly Chanhassen have been completed and seal coating is also completed. Paul Oehme: Yeah, we’re just sweeping up the road waste now with the excess aggregate. Councilman Peterson: How many miles did we end up doing? It sure seemed like it was an awful lot. Any idea? Paul Oehme: I don’t know that off the top of my head. Councilman Peterson: We did more than we’ve ever done before I assume. Paul Oehme: Well we need to catch up. Councilman Peterson: Yeah. A major undertaking. Todd Gerhardt: You know this is really the first major mill and overlay that I’ve been associated with in the community and I’ve been here almost 20 years. So it’s been significant. I think we did a little bit in the downtown last year or the year before, but for this year it’s the biggest mill and overlay project that this community’s ever taken on. And as Paul said, we probably need. We wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t so. Mayor Furlong: What’s the timing or duration for Lake Lucy Road? I mean assuming right now they’re going to start working milling it and the repairs to the gutters necessary and the realignment. Paul Oehme: Yeah, the realignment and the pouring of the curb and gutter. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that’s going to start soon? Paul Oehme: Yeah. I mean once we get the mill and overlay, or the milling done, then we’ll keep going on the streets and after that putting the curb, pave it and put the constructing the trail as well, so. The construction schedule is to the end of August I believe. So at least another month on it yet for construction work. Mayor Furlong: Okay, before completion. Paul Oehme: Before completion, correct. 30 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, very good. Any other questions? Or questions for staff. Mr. Gerhardt on the, and I know Mr. Hoffman isn’t here but on the playground replacement programs, those are proceeding I assume. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Curry Farms opened up last Friday and I believe North Lotus Lake should be sometime this week. I believe they also did Rice Marsh this past weekend. And I’m trying to remember the fourth one, but moving along. Should have them all up and running by the end of July here. Mayor Furlong: Okay, great. Good. I’m going to beg the council’s indulgence and allow th myself to go back to council presentations for failing to mention the 4 of July celebrations this rdth last week. What a great turn out. Great event on the 3 and the 4 for the City of Chanhassen. We had excellent attendance on both days. The weather was certainly cooperative but even around it 2 years ago when we had great weather it was much better attended. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I think we should have proclamations from you for every event from now on if those are the results of them. Mayor Furlong: Sounds fine. I was thinking more to the involvement and just the good participation and what that means to civic pride as well, in terms of being involved in those types of events and the way that a number of the organizations, our Chamber of Commerce, the Chanhassen Rotary and a number of other groups that stepped up to take lead significant portions of that celebration. I mean as I was mentioning at one point there were too many things going on to participate in all of them and so everybody go to pick and choose what they wanted to participate in and my understanding is attendance was up everywhere so thank you to the city staff that was involved and also to all the sponsors, the city sponsors for our park and rec department. The organizations that sponsored some of the groups of volunteers and the participants and everybody. No one person can pull all that off. It takes a group working rdth together to do it and the results were clear on both July 3 and 4 so make sure we mention that. Todd Gerhardt: That’s one of the things that CNN Money doesn’t take into account those things that really do make a community and it is those festivals and the businesses and the neighborhoods that come together and celebrate these special events. Even when it is 3 degrees outside people will go out and ice fish in Minnesota you know. Skate. Cross country ski Roger. Hockey. Outside hockey. So you know, and I think that would even rank us up even higher if you can measure the results of those festivals and everything else in the community so. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Anything else? To come before the council this evening. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Councilman Peterson: Just in the correspondence package. I read the letter from Mediacom and Bill Jensen. I was a little disappointed to see that they are raising the rates by 15. Approximately 15% on the basic service and they’re leaving, which is the majority of the population who has family cable at 47. It just seems like the people that want to save money are 31 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 being unduly burdened with an increase and the people that use it more often aren’t being burdened with any. The logic didn’t necessarily follow through so I was a little disappointed to see that. Councilman Lundquist: Wouldn’t that be to combat those people who keep the basic cable for their local stations and do the dish for others? Councilman Peterson: Could. Could, but it’s a service that the people who don’t do that are the ones that are probably, there’s probably more of those that don’t do that than do that. Councilman Lundquist: That was my guess when I read it. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I haven’t seen their schedule. You know last time did they skip the tier one service with their rate increase and just hit the family this time? Maybe we can do some research on that. Justin will find out how they handled their previous increases. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else? Any other discussion on the correspondence packet? If not, if there is nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 32